Tail a server log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Only the tail is fetched, so it stays fast on multi-megabyte logs,' implying efficiency and non-full-file reads. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the log is missing, leaving some transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Read the last N lines of a server log'), and the second sentence adds valuable context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is both concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a rich output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the main purpose, performance behavior, and common use cases. The only notable absence is explicit guidance on when to use a sibling tool like pz_read_file instead, but the description is otherwise complete enough for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already provides detailed semantic meaning for all four parameters (e.g., log kinds, line limits, contains filter caveat, service_id default). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Read the last N lines of a server log' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by listing concrete use cases ('what happened', 'why did it crash', 'who connected', 'show me the chat') and emphasizing that only the tail is fetched, setting it apart from tools like pz_read_file that might read full files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'This is the tool to use for...' and lists four common scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios when not to use it, but the use-case framing clearly implies the intended scope, which is a slight gap from a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.